Juxon, Williamunlocked (bap. 1582, d. 1663) Brian Quintrell https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/15179Published in print: 23 September 2004Published online: 23 September 2004This version: 03 January 2008 Previous version William Juxon (bap. 1582, d. 1663) after unknown artist, c. 1640 © National Portrait Gallery, London Juxon, William (bap. 1582, d. 1663), archbishop of Canterbury, was baptized in the church of St Peter the Great, Chichester, on 18 October 1582, the second son of Richard Juxon, registrar and receiver-general of the bishops of Chichester. His grandfather, John Juxon, was a Londoner, and the family had long been settled in the city of London, with close associations with the Merchant Taylors' Company. After attending the prebendal school in Chichester, Juxon joined his cousins Arthur and Rowland Juxon at the Merchant Taylors' School in London, entering on 30 June 1595; his uncle Thomas Juxon was then warden of the company. The Oxford years On 11 June 1598 Juxon was elected to St John's College, Oxford, having been awarded one of Sir Thomas White's scholarships, and he matriculated on 7 May 1602. Unlike John Buckeridge, William Laud, and Matthew Wren—other future bishops, who all graduated BA from St John's—Juxon proceeded to the degree of BCL on 5 July 1603 and very probably entered Gray's Inn soon afterwards, as a comment he made in the House of Lords in 1641 suggests. He stayed there only briefly, however, preferring an academic career within Oxford University even though he already held the reversion of his father's offices of bishop's registrar and dean's registrar at Chichester and must have been aware of parental expectations. He was elected a fellow of his college and lost little time in fulfilling the requirement of its statutes that within ten years of starting the study of law he should be ordained deacon (as he was in September 1606), and within fourteen become priest (as he did in September 1607). On 20 January 1610 he was appointed vicar of St Giles's, Oxford, a living in his college's gift; he resigned it in January 1616 on his presentation by Benedict Hatton to Somerton, Oxfordshire, where he served as rector for nearly six years. He eventually took his DCL in 1622. During 1611 Juxon played a useful, but not decisive, part in securing the election of William Laud, as president of St John's in succession to Buckeridge, after a hotly disputed contest with John Rawlinson. Juxon was one of a group of five senior fellows of the college who decided to vote as a block in accordance with the will of the majority among them; although their role was investigated on James I's orders by the college visitor, Thomas Bilson, bishop of Winchester, and was further considered by the king, the election was allowed to stand. John Towse's floating vote had been crucial. Immediately after Laud's appointment, Juxon served a year as vice-president of St John's, but he may well have had an obligation to do so, in keeping with the college's requirement that a civil lawyer had to fill the office once in every three years. Ten years later, Laud was reticent about his part in Juxon's own election to the presidency of St John's on 10 December 1621. In his diary Laud simply recorded his resignation from the presidency on 17 November 1621, and in a letter to Sir Robert Cotton in November 1623, which acknowledged that the college had still not recovered from the contest, he suggested that his role was less than Juxon's opponents supposed: 'the heat that was then struck is not yet quenched in the losing party', yet arose merely 'out of an opinion that I had some hand in the business' (Works, 6.242). He did not elaborate on his part in proceedings, but Juxon, meanwhile, may have reflected on the hazards of close identification, real or imagined, with Laud. Lancelot Andrewes, visiting the college as Bilson's successor in June 1624, referred to the detrimental effects of its continuing 'unhappy disagreement at home' (Mason, 33). Perhaps to bolster the new president Andrewes may, as dean of the chapels royal, already have had some part in the invitation from the clerk of the closet, Richard Neile, to Juxon to contribute to the series of Lenten sermons at court in both 1623 and 1624, as one of the few preachers who was not yet a royal chaplain. Laud, increasingly active at court as Andrewes's health declined, may also have helped. Juxon, however, came more frequently to royal notice during the two academic years he served as vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, in 1626/7 and 1627/8. In this role he received Charles I at Woodstock in August 1627, greeting him with a Latin oration (TNA: PRO, SP 16/73/2, Laud's copy), and by the end of the year had become a royal chaplain and received nomination as dean of Worcester (instituted 7 January 1628); as dean he repaired his cathedral and, at court, gave Lenten sermons each year between 1628 and 1631. His enthusiasm for hunting, although he was by now less often in the saddle, and knowledge of local woodlands, also commended him to the king. A letter of October 1627 from Charles to the chancellor of Oxford, Pembroke, asking him to instruct his vice-chancellor to order the heads of colleges to control their students' activities in the forest around Woodstock, may have been suggested by Juxon. A year later, Juxon was named among commissioners appointed to survey Shotover Forest, east of Oxford, on the king's behalf. As vice-chancellor, however, he proved quite unable to counter the Calvinist emphasis of the acts, and his difficulties may have prompted the final paragraph of the king's declaration on the articles of religion of November 1628, just after his term of office had ended, which specifically banned doctrinal disputations within the two universities. At Charles I's court When Richard Neile was translated to York in March 1632 and resigned from the clerkship of the closet which he had held since 1603, Juxon succeeded him, on 10 July, and Laud for the first time mentioned Juxon by name in his diary (the only previous entry, in July 1625, had simply referred impersonally to the president of St John's). Laud, who seemed to see the clerkship as about Juxon's mark, did however claim that it was 'at my suit' that he was chosen, 'That I might have one that I might trust near his Majesty, if I grow weak or infirm; as I must have a time' (Works, 3.216). There is at least a hint here of a more immediate concern about losing Charles's ear, for Laud was aware he must soon succeed Archbishop George Abbot across the river at Lambeth. Juxon, at almost fifty, was only nine years Laud's junior, and the decision was surely the king's. Charles may have thought it appropriate for a past president of St John's to make a formal request on behalf of his successor, but it is inherently unlikely, given the king's concern over church appointments, that he had not made up his own mind first, especially as the clerk's privy closet was placed between the presence chamber and the privy chamber, bringing him as physically close to the king as a servant not of the privy chamber or bedchamber could be. Juxon's resignation from the presidency of St John's on 5 January 1633, when still dean of Worcester and with no preferment within the church immediately in view, indicated his confidence in the continued flow of royal favour. In the event Juxon did not have long to wait. The deaths of Francis Godwin, bishop of Hereford, in April 1633 and archbishop Abbot on 4 August 1633 prompted his swift elevation. The king initially intended him for Hereford, where his election was confirmed late in July 1633, but before his consecration could take place Laud's translation to Canterbury brought Juxon the succession both to the deanship of the chapels royal (an office previously held under the Stuarts only by James Montagu, Lancelot Andrewes, and Laud) on 12 August 1633 and to the see of London, to which he was nominated on 22 September and confirmed eight days later. In the space of a few months Juxon had acquired two of the most coveted offices in the English church, and done so with a discreet certainty which, as the privy seal office warrants and signet office docquet books confirm, indicated the exercise of the king's will. A normally well-informed London newsletter writer, John Flower, in reporting on 21 September that Laud would hold on to the see of London until Michaelmas (29 September), was still unaware who the new bishop might be. More notably, neither Laud's diary nor his surviving correspondence records Juxon's rapid rise or reflects on the potential which the deanship of the chapels royal gave for further advancement. Within five years of becoming a royal chaplain Juxon had, as much by his accommodating personality as by any demonstration of competence, confirmed his place close to the king at court just as Laud was moving across the water to Lambeth. As clerk of the closet in succession to Juxon, Charles had chosen Matthew Wren, his chaplain since 1622 and an old friend of Francis, Lord Cottington. In March 1636 Juxon became lord treasurer of England, the first bishop in an office of state since John Williams held the lord keepership between 1621 and 1626, and the first churchman in the treasury since 1470. After the death of Portland in March 1635, the treasury had been placed in commission while Charles considered his options; friction between its two principal members, Laud and the chancellor of the exchequer, Cottington, soon undermined its effectiveness. The differences between them ran much deeper than a clash of personalities. Laud became obsessed with the need to root out impurities within the system of financial management, which the sometimes self-serving and aggrandizing Portland had come to epitomize and which his associate Cottington threatened to perpetuate. It was here, if anywhere in England, that ‘Thorough’ joined issue with what it took to be corruption, and Laud had high hopes that his ally, Thomas Wentworth, lord deputy of Ireland, would show an active interest in the succession to Portland. Wentworth, however, recognized from the outset that this would be politically unwise, and by the autumn of 1635 Laud, regarding himself as isolated at court by his abhorrence of what he saw as graft and corruption on all sides, was left to press his own case upon the king. His failure was a severe blow. Charles's preference for Juxon as lord treasurer compromised his own position, as primate, within the state. Yet Laud seems to have had no inkling that Juxon was in the running, and ignored him in correspondence with Wentworth at this time. It was as though the treasury was regarded as business beyond his compass. Juxon himself may have thought so. Charles afterwards remarked that he had spent most of the year in which the treasury was in commission trying to persuade Juxon to take it on and there is some evidence that the bishop was being encouraged to think of redefining his responsibilities. Laud himself implied in September 1635 that Matthew Wren was by then standing in for Juxon as dean of the chapels royal and that same month George Garrard, whose friendship with Cottington sharpened his perceptions of court activity, reported a rumour that Juxon was about to be made a privy councillor. A few days earlier the queen had informally consulted Cottington at Hanworth, no doubt confirming the identity of the prospective treasurer, and found him ready to remain in the less onerous post of chancellor of the exchequer. She knew that what Charles wanted was an amenable treasurer with some appreciation of financial priorities, who would work smoothly with Cottington, whose services he was anxious to retain. That November, in the Star Chamber case of Pell v. Bagg, which the queen attended in support of the wily and hard-dealing Bagg, Juxon duly aligned himself with Cottington among a narrow majority of judges who found in Bagg's favour, in contrast to Laud who trustingly supposed that the king would, like him, see the force of Pell's arguments. Juxon proved adept at grasping the ways of the court and his amiable disposition, and evident royal favour, were already bringing him a range of contacts more varied than Laud's own. As bishop of London he was well placed to strengthen his contacts with his kinsmen, some of them working in the church courts, and others associated with City companies. As lord treasurer Juxon soon demonstrated his readiness to fall in with established practices. He saw no reason why customs farms, which allowed the crown to draw extra concessions from the bidders, should be abandoned and the customs returned to direct management by the crown as Laud and a disgruntled London merchant, John Harrison, maintained. Harrison never regarded Juxon as a financial innocent, later recalling Juxon's practice of referring to his brother John of St Gregory by Paul, a proctor in the London church courts: all business of profitt, as offices in his disposall and what else; unto all which he gave despatch when his brother and the party were agreed; by which course (although he seemed never to meddle in those things) he made a greater benefit then any of the former treasurer upon like occasions had made. BL, Stowe MS 326, fol. 62r Among Juxon's cousins was Nicholas Crisp, the rising Guinea merchant, who was brought into Sir Paul Pindar's syndicate for the great farm of customs in July 1637. Another who joined the farm was the queen's master of horse, George, Lord Goring, who had hopes of extending his interests in the tobacco trade, and who had lost no time in securing the appointment of his kinsman Philip Warwick as the new lord treasurer's secretary. As early as December 1637 Henry Percy assured Wentworth that Warwick 'governs his master as he pleases' (Strafford MS 17/259), seeming to fulfil the prediction of the earl of Clare that it would be left to Cottington to do the business of the treasury. But Juxon had also shown that he was not entirely unfamiliar with the practices of high finance—Percy indeed thought him 'the best for them [projectors] we ever had' (Strafford MS 17/263). In most respects Juxon proved a tidy and effective peacetime administrator, under whom the king's finances continued to increase in yield: he and Cottington ultimately secured a substantial improvement in the value of the customs farms (the great farm up to £172,000 per annum, the petty to £72,500 per annum), and by using the 1635 book of rates they increased revenue from trade to an average of £425,000 per annum, during the later 1630s, almost half the crown's ordinary revenue. They encouraged the effective management of both the court of wards and the soap monopoly and curbed the tendency for treasury officials to employ the king's revenues for their own purposes by promptly examining the declared accounts; in 1639–40 they reduced pensions and annuities. Yet the king's decision to take military action against the Scottish covenanters quickly demonstrated the limits to these financial improvements. In neither bishops' war was the king's campaign securely or promptly funded, in part because support from the peers and gentry was not as readily forthcoming as Juxon supposed it would be. Unlike Cottington and Wentworth, he did not relish the urgency and uncertainty of war financing. As early as December 1638 Laud had ruffled the king by remarking that Juxon 'would use providence enough were he left alone … were I in his place, they should command the [white] staff when they would, but not a penny of money till these difficulties were over' (Works, 7.511). Juxon's resignation from the treasury on 17 May 1641, shortly after Wentworth's attainder (which he had advised against) and execution, must have come as a relief. Cottington resigned from the exchequer the same day. On his appointment as lord treasurer on 6 March 1636 Juxon had been made a privy councillor and found himself involved in the king's government across a broad front. As treasurer he was ex officio a member of all the council's standing committees as well as the commission for the admiralty, and was also likely to serve on the council's ad hoc committees. On 9 May 1637 he was among those nominated to the new council of war. The extant evidence does not allow for an accurate estimate of his overall commitment, but attendance lists for the administrative meetings of the council (in TNA: PRO, PC 2, and in the council clerks' papers in SP 16) indicate that he was very seldom absent from its board, and between March 1636, when he gave his last Lenten sermon at court (TNA: PRO, LC 5/134, fol. 1v), and his final pre-war appearance at the board on 27 April 1641, his presence was noted at well over 500 of these routine meetings, more than any other councillor. There was much other business besides, and it was not long before diocesan responsibilities began to lose ground to ship money and then the Scottish troubles. This may not have entirely displeased Juxon. His preoccupation with council and treasury matters meant that he could, more legitimately than his fellow bishops, place responsibility for carrying out church policy on his officials. To be at a remove from the enforcement of policy suited his cautious nature. He took a liberal view of reading the reissued Book of Sports in the parishes, and merely wanted assurance that it had been published, and did not enquire when and by whom it had been read. His attitude to altar rails was circumspect—perhaps like Laud he was aware that the practice did not entirely have canonical sanction. He did not stand in the way of firm action by local officials but, as his commissary, Dr Robert Aylett, once complained, left them without adequate backing. Juxon visited his diocese in 1634, 1637, and 1640 but his annual diocesan returns, as summarized by Laud as part of his provincial reports to the king, read feebly, and point to a lack of firm direction, in much the same way as visitors' reports on St John's, Oxford, under his presidency had done. In 1634 he acknowledged some inconformity in the diocese of London, 'but proofs came home only against four: three curates and a vicar'. In the next year 'three of his [four] archdeacons have made no return at all to him, so that he can certify nothing but what hath come to his knowledge without their help'. In 1637 Laud again reported that 'my lord treasurer complains that he hath little assistance of his archdeacons', and may have taken satisfaction in adding 'I believe it to be true, and shall therefore, if your Majesty think fit [as Charles did], cause letters to be written to them to awake them to their duties' (Works, 5.327, 332, 348). In his own dealings, Juxon took a pragmatic line. He sparingly granted licences to preach, but was on occasion accommodating to existing lecturers. He viewed Richard Mountague's enthusiasm for closer relations with Rome with caution, but from 1635 expected clergy new to his diocese, at least, to subscribe on institution to a set of eleven Arminian articles, the last of which stated bluntly that the 'Church of Rome is a true Church and truly so called' (Fincham, Visitation Articles, 2.126). He also knew how to make himself inconspicuous. He sought in February 1636 to allay Scottish fears over the changing character of the new Scottish prayer book but, pleading treasury commitments, left Laud and Wren to scrutinize James Wedderburn's notes which, for the first time, dealt with the interpretation of the eucharist. Juxon was among the five bishops absent from the Lords on the day the canons of 1640 were due to be signed, and thus was not named in the impeachment proceedings of 4 August 1641. Retirement and restoration Given the sensitivity of the two posts he held, as lord treasurer and bishop of London, Juxon attracted remarkably little attention from either MPs or constituencies during the parliamentary reckoning against Charles I's personal rule. As Lord Falkland conceded early in the Long Parliament, Juxon 'in an unexpected and mighty place and power … [had] expressed an equal moderation and humility, being neither ambitious before, nor proud after, either of the crozier's staff or white staff' (Rushworth, 3/1.185). Because during the civil war Juxon did not take up arms against parliament or voluntarily assist the king's army he was allowed to remain at Fulham with his secretary, Philip Warwick, until the sale of the bishop's palace, after which he lived for much of his time as a discreet country cleric at either Aldbourne in Sussex or Little Compton in Gloucestershire with his brother John who, an informer told the committee for the advance of money in 1647, had 'all or the most part of the bishop's plate and goods, for all things are in common between them' (Mason, 143). Juxon nevertheless defended Laud at his trial in 1644 against the charge that he had been treasonably close to the Church of Rome, and attended the king, at his request, at successive peace negotiations, the last at Newport in September 1648. He was present at the king's trial and was with him on the scaffold. Later he supervised his interment at St George's Chapel, Windsor, having been refused permission to bury the body in Henry VII's chapel or to read the burial service. During the 1650s Juxon hunted frequently despite his advancing years, and on one occasion was allegedly defended by Cromwell after his normally well-ordered hounds had disturbed worshippers at Chipping Norton by excitedly chasing a hare into the churchyard. Nearby, at Little Compton, he continued with impunity to conduct services according to the Anglican rite. When Juxon returned to London in August 1660 he was in his late seventies and out of touch with current politics and Anglican thinking. Appointed primate by Charles II that September, he was overshadowed in church affairs by Gilbert Sheldon, bishop of London, and had little influence on the religious settlement. His attitude to nonconformity never became clear. He was restored to the privy council only in April 1663, an indication perhaps of the new king's coolness towards him. He did what he could to revive the material condition of the church, spending freely on clergy incomes, furniture, and, especially, fabric: over £10,000 was spent on the great hall at Lambeth Palace alone. He also, characteristically, appointed his kinsmen to administrative posts within the diocese of Canterbury. His metropolitan visitation of the southern province in 1663, carefully carried out by his vicar-general, Sir Richard Chaworth, was to be the last of its kind. Juxon died, unmarried, at Lambeth on 4 June 1663, and was buried at Oxford on 9 July with more pomp than he had asked for in St John's College chapel, next to the college's founder, Sir Thomas White. Laud's body was brought from Barking to lie with them. Juxon's will showed how far he had outlived his generation. Personal bequests, such as that to Philip Warwick, were few, and apart from £6000 to members of his family the bulk of his estate went to institutions with which he had been associated: St John's College received £7000 to purchase lands 'for the increase of the yearly stipends of the fellows and scholars', St Paul's £2000 for repairs, and Canterbury Cathedral, by way of a codicil, £500. His nephew Sir William Juxon, as executor, was charged with overseeing the completion of the hall at Lambeth, if need be (TNA: PRO, PROB 11/311/89). Juxon, according to Philip Warwick, was 'of a meek spirit and of a solid and steady judgement' (Warwick, 100), very different from his supposed mentor, Laud, whose shortcomings as a courtly cleric his own advance does much to point up. Where Laud consoled himself with being a principled but lonely and thwarted reformer, Juxon, true to his training as a civilian, preferred to work quietly within the system. Even though Wentworth in Ireland almost always dealt directly with Cottington, Juxon was an inspired choice for lord treasurer in the context of reducing friction at court. He was on good terms with both the fractious senior treasury commissioners, Laud and Cottington, and he was someone the king and queen felt comfortable with. But despite the distinction visited on the church, Laud was less than happy with the outcome, and in the later 1630s continued to snipe at the management of the king's finances, suggesting that Juxon lacked the firmness to assert himself when it mattered. Charles acknowledged that he found it difficult to elicit Juxon's own views from him, despite making it plain that he valued them; political confidences between them must have been few. Juxon's reserve brought him durability in high office but left his beliefs less clearly visible than they might have been. His theology is defined largely by the Arminian circles within which he moved. He does not seem to have been asked to make declarations on the king's behalf from the pulpit. None of his sermons was ever ordered to be printed by either James or Charles, unlike those of Andrewes and Laud, and none appears to have been otherwise published. Juxon had become the king's man but, for all his apparent authority, his role remained circumscribed. With that he prudently rested content. Sources TNA: PRO, PROB 11/311/89; SP 16; SO 3/10; PSO 2/94; PC 2; LC 5/132, 134; C 115 J. Flower, letter to Viscount Scudamore, 21 Sept 1633, TNA: PRO, C 115/M31/8159 BL, Stowe MS 326 GL, GL 9531/15, GL 9537/14 and 15 LMA, DL/C/88–90 Strafford papers, Sheff. Arch., Wentworth Woodhouse muniments Essex RO, D/ALV 2 and D/AXA 2 muniment book 15, Westminster Abbey Muniment Room and Library The works of the most reverend father in God, William Laud, ed. J. Bliss and W. Scott, 7 vols. (1847–60) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat P. Warwick, Memoirs of the reign of Charles I, ed. W. Scott (1813) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat K. Fincham, ed., Visitation articles and injunctions of the early Stuart church, 2 vols. (1994–8) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat W. D. Peckham, ed., The acts of the dean and chapter of the cathedral church of Chichester, 1545–1642, Sussex RS, 58 (1959) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat The life and letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ed. L. P. Smith, 2 vols. (1907) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat The diary of Thomas Crosfield, ed. F. S. Boas (1935) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat The autobiography of Phineas Pett, ed. W. G. Perrin, Navy RS, 51 (1918) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, ed. D. Laing, 3 vols. (1841–2) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat Letters of John Holles, 1587–1637, ed. P. R. Seddon, 3 vols., Thoroton Society Record Series, 31, 35–6 (1975–86) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat J. Rushworth, Historical collections, 5 pts in 8 vols. (1659–1701) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat E. Cardwell, ed., Documentary annals, 2 vols. (1839) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat The manuscripts of the Earl Cowper, 3 vols., HMC, 23 (1888–9) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat G. Radcliffe, The earl of Strafforde's letters and dispatches, with an essay towards his life, ed. W. Knowler, 2 vols. (1739) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat Pepys, Diary The diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 1605–1675, ed. R. Spalding, British Academy, Records of Social and Economic History, new ser., 13 (1990) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat T. A. Mason, Serving God and mammon: William Juxon, 1582–1663 (1985) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: the rise of English Arminianism, c.1590–1640 (1987) open popover; repr.(1990) open popover B. Quintrell, ‘The Church triumphant? The making of a spiritual lord treasurer, 1635–6’, The political world of Thomas Wentworth, ed. J. Merritt (1996) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat P. E. McCullough, Sermons at court: politics and religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean preaching (1998) [incl. CD-ROM] Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed: the Roman and protestant churches in English protestant thought, 1600–1640 (1995) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat J. Davies, The Caroline captivity of the church: Charles I and the remoulding of Anglicanism, 1625–1641 (1992) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat K. Sharpe, The personal rule of Charles I (1992) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat H. R. Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, 1573–1645, 2nd edn (1962) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat M. C. Fissel, The bishops' wars: Charles I's campaigns against Scotland, 1638–1640 (1994) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat R. Ashton, The crown and the money market, 1603–1640 (1960) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat I. M. Green, The re-establishment of the Church of England, 1660–1663 (1978) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat G. Donaldson, The making of the Scottish prayer book of 1637 (1954) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat P. S. Seaver, The puritan lectureships: the politics of religious dissent, 1560–1662 (1970) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat K. Fincham, Prelate as pastor: the episcopate of James I (1990) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat W. C. Costin, The history of St John's College, Oxford, 1598–1860, OHS, new ser., 12 (1958) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat W. H. Marah, Memoirs of Archbishop Juxon (1869) Find it in your libraryGoogle PreviewWorldCat Archives CKS, De L'Isle and Dudley MSS, papers, HMC 77 BL, Coke papers TNA: PRO, state papers domestic, Charles I, SP 16